Fundamentalist Inversions: Some Postmodern Variants

I want to put on the table some recent inversions of fundamentalism expressed under the guise of postmodern re-alignments.  By fundamentalism I'm referring to the Christian fundamentalism created in the wake of the modernist debates in the US around the 1920 (a fun genealogy is here), not fundamentalism in 'general' if there is such of thing.  I want to speak about three specific invesions of fundamentalism regarding inerrancy, biblical primitivism, and anti-intellectualism. 

From inerrancy to pure errancy:
This has been around for awhile so I won't spend too much time on it.  From an ideological commitment to inerrant orginal documents which contain the word of God comes the inversion of the pure errancy of the Bible.  By errancy I don't mean full of errors (although that might be claimed also), but rather that scripture is mark as errant, as somewhat lost, or at least meandering, never quite landing anywhere, that there is no cohesive theme, plot, narrative, or character.  Rather than a legal document we should think of the Bible as a communal library (McLaren's new proposal).  I think this inversion is the triumph of a certain hermeneutics deployed against modern literalism.  And as such is merely an inversion of fundamentalism, rather than a break or overcoming.

From biblical primitivism to rabbinic primitivism:
Old time fundamentalists always want to get back to the beginning, to return to what the Bible said and just do it.  Who wants to be an Acts 2 church?  The inversion of this, I submit, is a return/recovery of rabbinic primitivism.  As the story goes, because the church became so thoroughly Hellenized so quickly (just see the Gospel of John) the only way back into an authentic Jewish mindset reflecting that of Jesus is to look at early rabbinic Judaism, circa 120 C.E, after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.  Hebrew midrash, mystical uncertainty, the dissemination of the Torah without a final interpretation, even by God, all of these are taken as a better way of believing/knowing/living with Jesus on his way, rather than the orthodox of Greek thought forms.

On one level, I have nothing against any of these and I think indeed they might help us in a life of faith.  But the only problem is that rabbinic Judaism was already itself a reactionary movement against an already Hellenized Judaism, and secondly, to use it as an interpretative devise for authentic Christianity is to join Enlightenment racism started over 200 years ago.  Let me explain.  The Apostle Paul was not such a strange mixture of Greek and Hebrew culture as so often portrayed.  He was rather the more typical expression of Diaspora Judaism of the time.  While Philo was a particularly spectacular attempt to harmonize the Torah with Plato, when you look at the intertestimental literature (of course the Septuagint, but also the Wisdom of Solomon, The Book of Enoch, Baruch, etc) your see various assimilations of Greek throught via wisdom and apocalyptic literature.  Certainly I'm not saying it was monolithic in nature, but Hellenistic influences were already prevelant well before Jesus came on the stage, even if they weren't as dominant in Palastine as they were outside it.  But secondly, the attempt to find a primitive expression of Judaism through which to funnel Christian theology, which on the surface seems very open and welcoming to Judaism (which I would advocate), it inadvertently falls into a line of thought which began as anti-Semitic polemics (see Dale B. Martin, “Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism divide).  As we all know, the Renassaince and Enlightenment idealized ancient Greece (its art, culture, politics).  This created a mirror through which to view the problems/solutions of European cultural, and the foil for this became a backwards Judaic thought.  Two intellectual  poles were created for understanding thought, religions, politics, and society: the Greek and Hebrew.  We have been oscillating back and for between the two poles ever since.  Now I could go on about this, but suffice to say that I'm not convinced this is the best way forward (recovering a primitive rabbinic Judaism) because while definitely worthy as a way of life, I just don't think it will help us better understand the origins of Christianity, just like getting back to Acts is no good.   So, let's avoid this primitivist inversion.

From conservative anti-intellectualism to liberal anti-intellectualism:
This one has me the most frustrated.  I was drawn to the emerging church conversation because I saw vigorous questioning and thoughtful exploration.  And I certainly don't mind disagreements over quesitons and answers. And certainly there are several young, postmodern emerging/emergent theologians who are making rigorous arguments and thoughtful claims.  But I've become more and more concerned at a creeping anti-intellectualism among some of the loudest voices who rest on rhetorical questions, anecdotal evidence, and communal experiences over philosophical and theological articulation and argument.  This, I believe, follows from the previous inversions because your don't have to really say anything or land anywhere because we are all merely in an endless conversation.  Essentially, everything is a rhetorical display without any real substance.  And really, you can only score so many rhetorical points before you are only preaching to the choir (which is a form a fundamentalism itself, is it not?).  I have been a part of numerous conversations that only go so deep before an implied anti-intellectualism takes over.  If one probes too deeply all of a sudden you are part of the establishment, you are on a heretic hunt, or you are defending an ideology which we are trying to overcome with our radical questioning.  Well, that can only go so far.  When a certain form of radical questioning takes the well worn paths of protestant liberalism, or mirror forms of Hegelianism, it does not good to just assert that "we" aren't doing that old thing, you have to actually show how things are different, you have to defend and articulate what is going on.  This is the role of an 'organic theologian', to both articulate within a community what is happening, and express to larger communities why it makes sense.  To only do the former without the latter is to perpetuate a fundamentalism on the other side of the equation.  Hence my claim of an inverted anti-intellectualism.  Fundamentalist, Evangelicals, Hippies, the Seeker-Church, and now many Missional/Emergent types play this card as a way of calling into question the power of the establishment.  Now I'm not saying there aren't issues of power going on, but have faith in your ideas and practices, show the world, make your case, and make a difference.  Don't just claim that the powers are keeping you out without even actually making an argument so saying that others won't understand.

So, I just wanted to get these out there, that what is thought to be after/beyond fundamentalism might just be its inversion. 

Have any of you experienced this? 

Do any disagree with my typology of what's going on?

---

Geoff Holsclaw is a co-pastor at Life on the Vine, and blogs over at for the time being.

Comments

[Bryne Lewis Allport]

Geoff, thanks for this post. I have been personally frustrated especially to see well-meaning and well-intentioned friends try to push out from their fundmentalist moorings only to get spun around in one of these reactionary type eddies. i realize it comes out of a desire to critique and correct the more egregious claims of fundamentalism, but the critique often gets mired down in the very presuppositions it was hoping to overcome.

i went through this same problem in debating gender issues in the fundamentalist church i attended as a young adult. it took me a long time to realize that i was killing myself trying to meet their requirements for "biblical" argument without questioning whether those requirements were valid.

[remy]

i think there's always a danger of desiring to be the equal and opposite of one's adversary. I've never found being 'anti' to be satisfactory in the long-term for any kind of positive identity other from what it opposes (existing by its nature only as a negation of a negation). I do think it is not uncommon for passionate people who are displaced to move from one object of desire (i.e. conservatism) to another (i.e. liberalism) with all their affective force.

If fundamentalism can be defined minimally as "the creation of an internal boundary within a group of believers that separates the 'truly faithful' from the others who are 'false' or 'misled' ones", then I think your typology is spot on. Fundamentalism is not so much a particular content as it is a sensibility that can be filled with whatever content. This is certainly something we need to be watchful of.

[twitter.com/geoffholsclaw]

remy,

I think what you said about "affective force" is spot on. very insightful. some forms of liberalism have the same "remnant" identity ('only we truly understand') as fundamentalists.

[remy]

it also seems to explain a similar phenomenon with hardcore Marxists of the 1970's becoming leaders of extreme right parties today.

one does tend to tire with the same rhetorical strategies being deployed on either side of the ecclesial spectrum; one would have thought trench warfare to be a thing of the past.

[Alan Thomson]

Hi Geoff,

I wonder whether you could comment on the suggestion this notion of inversion could be inherent to the postmodern situation in the sense that what is really at play is ultra rather than post modernity. With the post-secular for example we might argue a shift to an altogether different field of play has happened whereas with (ultra)modernity the primary option is to swap sides of the field.

[Liz V]

Hi Geoff - I've often read this blog but haven't commented before - and I appreciate your insight in this post.
I think your last point about liberal anti-intellectualism is what I've experienced the most. I think there is a degree of pride - probably related to the hyper-individualist problem - that goes along with claiming that you are 'just doing conversational theology' without locating yourself/your answer anywhere. It reminds me of the problem of memory loss in the fundamentalist stream, and often within evangelical traditions today, that can then let every individual's idea be the brand new or unique one for the moment. Instead of knowing a little more of the conversation/history that your individual idea is already implicitly resting on, you can claim less responsibility for the outcome this way.

I wonder how practicing theology faithfully - with grace and truth - interacts here?

Although - I would still say (not that you are not also leaving room to say this in your post), that there is a lot of good theological reflection done outside of philosophy/theology proper. But maybe it's a matter of leadership and influence, and whether it's a lay person reflecting on their experience in a small group setting, versus a published 'leader' or teacher making public arguments that are heralded for not being intellectual.

[geoffrey holsclaw]

Liz,

yeah, I like what you are saying. yes, the aspect of the "conversation" is that it often doesn't interact with the conversation which has been going on for centuries (which is tradition via practice and theology). of course you can disagree with tradition, but too often the only tradition being conversed with is fundamentalism, and that is not nearly old enough.

[keyou aka]

I'm so happy to learn there are other free thinkers alive on this planet, I thought I was stuck with kids, now I'm seeing that I'm penned with goats...

[keyou aka]

I'm so glad to learn there are other free thinkers, I thought I was a goat penned with kids, now I know there's just a bunch of cotton wool in the way...